WHich is Better? Dire Wolf Mount or Beastmaster w/ Companion?

[BASHMAN]

I found out that you CAN!!! ride your animal companion.

From adventurer's Vault p. 122:

COMPANION AND MOUNT
SLOT ITEMS
Characters sometimes have trained beasts that fight
alongside them, serving either as companions, mounts,
or both. As your character advances in level and acquires
treasure, you may want to give some thought to equipping
your companion or mount with some magic gear
of its own.
A creature serving as your companion or mount has
a single magic item slot that you can activate using your
own actions (and not the creature’s). A companion that
doubles as a mount can use a mount item in place of a
companion item, or vice versa.

 

[HeirToPendragon]

I'd like to see your Medium PC ride one of the Beast Ranger beasts

Would be funny to watch.

 

[Danceofmasks]

It's a small PC, but there's still the problem of getting a large beast companion.
By RAW, dire wolf (or any other large creature) isn't an available choice, and DMG p46 does say your mount has to be larger than you and no smaller than large.

 

[fissionessence]

I found out that you CAN!!! ride your animal companion.

From adventurer's Vault p. 122:

Unfortunately, I don't see there any rules that actually allow you to ride a beast smaller than large . . . it just supposes that there could someday be a way to mount a companion, and so it provides magic item rules for such an occasion.

~ fissionessence

 

[BASHMAN]

I think that is it-- it is not a Mount-- it is a companion that I happen to be riding!

 

[77IM]

Allowing a halfling to ride a Medium creature is a perfectly fine house rule (although it is definitely a house rule; by RAW all mounts must be Large) and if I were your DM, I would encourage this sort of creative character building by allowing you to ride the animal companion.

-- 77IM

 

[Rartemass]

That's only if your DM decides that the mount gets all of its own powers and actions. In that case it's basically an allied NPC, and so the enemy NPCs can be tougher.

However, if you're using the rules where a mount basically does nothing except give its mounted combat bonus and increase the speed of the rider, you don't make the opposition tougher.

To continue on this point,the DMG pg 46-47 states that:
Mount and Rider
Mount Benefits: The Monster Manual details the benefits that many creatures grant if you meet a minimum level and have the Mounted Combat feat. If you don't meet a mount's prerequisites, you can ride it, but you don't gain the mount's special benefits.

Mounts in Combat
Actions: On your turn, you and your mount combined can take a normal set of action-a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. You divide these actions as you wish. most commonly, your mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and you take a standard action to attack. You and your mount also share a single immediate action. If you and your mount separate, you still share one set of actions on that turn.

 

[timex]

I have a related opinion and a question as well regarding Dire Wolves and Animal Companions, specifically related to this issue. From the discussion here I can deduce that a mount must be large (Dire wolf = large) and "Wolf" is an animal companion thus being both mount and companion. I have a player that has requested a Dire Wolf companion and I'm prepared to let him have it. The question I have is regarding balance. I think he would be able to ride it as a mount no problem (The DDM fig is a 2x2 base and HUGE compared to his Ranger fig). I'm worried about play balance. I suppose I could just add another PC worth of xp in each encounter. Anyone have experience with this particular issue? Anyone have any advice for a newish DM? I'd like to let him have it but I don't want to paint myself into a corner (or have him whine too loud when I have to kill it off).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really see a problem with allowing a ranger to have a companion animal which is of large size. It is rather a trade off. You can ride the beast, but it is also going to have difficulty fitting into a lot of places and just in general large creatures have a more difficult time on the battlefield. It is usually easier to flank them, they are more likely to end up blocking AoEs (or being IN an enemy AoE) etc.

The halfling is somewhat of a special case. Halflings are pretty much gimped as it is in a couple of ways, so allowing them to ride their medium sized companion doesn't seem terribly unfair. Really if you think about it there is not much advantage to being mounted unless the mount has specific rules providing such, and companions don't, so at best the PC might gain a bit of extra movement rate.

There is no real problem with a beast master calling his beast companion a 'dire wolf' either. It won't conform exactly to the stats of a dire wolf in the MM, but the way the beast companion feature is written a beast simply HAS the given stats, regardless of what the player CALLS it. Beast companions are not really typical examples of their type is what I would say. Maybe the medium sized dire wolf companion was the runt of the litter, etc.